You are nuts. You are using liberal leftist talking points.
The criticism came from LIBERALS and Obama's own government 'scientist'.
You are also connecting George Soros to this is like connecting any investor in BP to the oil spill.
It is none of your business what I invest in. It doesn't mean I can't have an opinion (after researching) about the solvent they were using. You might try that yourself.
Your post was ludicrous!!! As if the items you listed have warnings like Corexit does! Run and buy some more Nalco shares and keep on spewing Nalco’s talking points. You think shampoos, Dawn, face creams and cosmetics have these warnings? GET REAL! You are spreading propaganda and lies.
The list includes 1,2-Propanediol ; 2-butoxy-ethanol ; 2-sulfo-Butanedioic acid, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1); Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate; Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivss.; Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs; 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)- ; and Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light.
Nalco, the company which manufactures COREXIT, responded by posting a list of “common day-to-day” uses of the chemicals in question. That list includes skin cream, body shampoo, emulsifier in juice, Baby bath, mouth wash, face lotion, emulsifier in food, Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions, Wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin, beverages, Household cleaning products, Air fresheners.
The independent watchdog group OMBWatch cites the New Jersey Department of Health to point out possible dangers of one of the the ingredients. The document indicates 2-butoxy-ethanol: “may be absorbed through the skin; should be handled as a CARCINOGEN—WITH EXTREME CAUTION; can irritate the skin and eyes with possible eye damage; can irritate the nose and throat; can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. can cause headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and passing out and may damage the liver and kidneys.”
The dispersant is widely considered more dangerous to human health than the oil itself, and several clean-up workers exposed to the dispersant have been reported as coming down with health problems
http://www.examiner.com/x-46544-New-Orleans-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-EPA-finally-relases-COREXIT-ingredient-list
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicals
Are any human health effects expected as a result of using the dispersants?
People working with dispersants are strongly advised to use a half face filter mask or an air-supplied breathing apparatus to protect their noses, throats, and lungs, and they should wear nitrile or PVC gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants off skin and out of their eyes.
How will we know the future and total effects on marine life of dispersant use?
It is too early in the process to know what the scope of the natural resource damage will be.
Apart from marine life, has the Unified Command been able to make an assessment on the effects of the dispersant on the environment?
The harm or toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment is generally associated with the oil rather than with the dispersant alone. However, use of dispersants breaks up a slick of oil on the surface into smaller droplets that can go beneath the surface. When applied on the surface before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface-dwelling organisms (such as sea birds) and intertidal species (such as mangroves and salt marshes), while increasing exposure to a smaller population of aquatic life found deeper in the water. It is unknown if dispersed oil has toxic implications to the human population because bioaccumulation through the food chain has not been evaluated.
Surface Use of Dispersants in the Response to the BP Spill:
The authorization given to BP to use the dispersant on oil present on the surface of the water included specific conditions to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of residents in affected areas. At this time, , EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive requiring BP to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. The Unified Command will continue to monitor for the effects of this dispersant on the environment and we reserve the right to discontinue its use.
Have dispersants ever been used this much before?
While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States.
You are using liberal leftist talking points.
BS, YOU ARE USING NALCO talking points. I see you post no links to back yours up, I provided many links. You can’t because your link goes right to Nalco, what a shocker. AH
Toxicity and alternatives
The safety data sheet states “The potential human hazard is: High.”
According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused “respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders” in people.[7] According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.[11] However, the oil from Deepwater Horizon is not believed to be typical Louisiana crude.
Reportedly Corexit is toxic to marine life and helps keep spilled oil submerged. The quantities used in the Gulf will create ‘unprecedented underwater damage to organisms.’[12] 9527A is also hazardous for humans: ‘May cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver’.[13]
Alternative dispersants which are approved by the EPA are listed on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule[14] and rated for their toxicity and effectiveness.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit